As part of an expert workshop in November 2025 we determined potential interventions and objectives for Fonio (Digitaria exilis) and Jute Mallow (Corchorus olitorius) value chains. We conducted card-based voting (1=low, 2=medium, 3=high impact). We normalized the responses using Percentage of Maximum Possible (POMP) scoring (Cohen et al. 1999) to account for participation rates and enable cross-intervention comparison. We chose the approach to simplify the rating of relationships between objectives, aligning with established participatory methods in rural development (Chambers 1994) and stakeholder engagement metrics (Reed 2009). The work was facilitated by a decision modeling team, including 13 researchers (3 academics, 3 nutritionists, 7 research institution members).

The expert elicited information clarifies what actors in these value chains care about, and what they agree are possible leverage points or interventions to improve the value chains. The voting data clarifies their perception of the strength of the interaction between the interventions and their impact on the outcomes. The bubble graphs show relationships between the mean value for impact and feasibility. Income generation, for example, is considered impact whereas conflict reduction is related to feasibility. The reasoning is related to Keeney’s methods for group decision making (Ralph L. Keeney 2013) and defining objectives (Ralph L. Keeney 2021).

Value Chain Prioritization for Fonio (Digitaria exilis)

Impact Assessment

An overview of the impact assessment for the Fonio, Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf, value chain, for black and white varieties. Interventions and objectives were identified through expert consultation with 55 participants (16 agricultural institutions, 10 Farmers, 9 consumers, 7 processors, 7 traders, 3 transporters, 4 restaurants and 2 import suppliers).

Comprehensive Impact Matrix Heatmap

This shows the complete assessment - both the stakeholder priorities (weights) and intervention impacts.

Bubble Chart - “Impact vs Feasibility (Weighted Composite)” D. exilis

This chart shows the relationship between impact and feasibility for each intervention option, with a weighted composite average score for each. Bubble size represents the total weighted composite score.

Comparative score composition D. exilis

Comparative investment map D. exilis

# Comparative investment map by Gender D. exilis

Fonio in Boukoumbe

Fonio in Natitingou

##Value Chain Prioritization for Jute Mallow (Corchorus olitorius)

Impact Assessment

An overiew of the impact assessment for the Jute Mallow, Corchorus olitorius L., value chain. Interventions and objectives were identified through expert consultation with 50 participants (13 producers, 9 traders, 2 transporters, 2 restaurant owners, 1 processor, 1 micro-financer, 4 consumers, 5 NGOs, 4 administrative authorities, 7 agricultural institutions, 2 import suppliers).

Comprehensive Impact Matrix Heatmap C. olitorius

This shows the complete assessment - both the stakeholder priorities (weights) and intervention impacts.

Bubble Chart - “Impact vs Feasibility (Weighted Composite)” C. olitorius

This chart shows the relationship between impact and feasibility for each intervention option, with a weighted composite average score for each. Bubble size represents the total weighted composite score.

Comparative score composition C. olitorius

Comparative investment map C. olitorius

# Comparative investment map by Gender C. olitorius

crincrin in Boukoumbe

crincrin in Natitingou

References

Chambers, Robert. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and Paradigm. Vol. 22. 10. World Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90030-2.
Cohen, Patricia, Jacob Cohen, Leona S Aiken, and Stephen G West. 1999. “The Percentage of Maximum Possible (POMP) Scoring Procedure.” Unpublished Manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1037/e683322011-005.
Keeney, Ralph L. 2021. “Give Yourself a Nudge to Make Smarter Business Decisions.” MBR, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University 01 (01): 195–203.
Keeney, Ralph L. 2013. “Foundations for Group Decision Analysis.” Decision Analysis 10 (2): 103–20.
Reed, Mark S. 2009. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141 (10): 2417–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.